Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized > (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the > client sent over. For instance, previous versions: > > regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE'; > SET The whole area of character sets and encoding schemes is confusing enough without accepting a character set name as an encoding scheme specification. I'll bet that in five or ten years we'll be accepting more than one encoding scheme for the Unicode character set. > I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that. It's pretty annoying > that it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the > change to canonicalize the GUC's value? Can we fix the JDBC driver rather than reverting this? Long run, I'd be in favor of just rejecting a character set name as a client encoding specification. I think inferring one is being generous. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
